I
am a school psychologist with 28 years of experience.
I have spent twenty of those years working in a western North Carolina
public school system.

As states
move to implement a the President’s proposed embargo against "social promotion,"
many are also implementing bars to promotion (retention) if children do
not meet grade level standards.

On April
1, 1999, North Carolina became one of those states.

North Carolina
needs about 7000 teachers next year. North Carolina will produce about
3500 job applicants. So in the face of the greatest teacher shortage in
the past fifty years, what have we done? We’ve made our kids accountable
for their own education. Coincidence, I’m sure, but still troubling.

Based on
earlier test norms, children whose test results fall at Level II (below
standard and therefore not eligible for promotion under the new policy)
may be as high as the 40th percentile (in the average range).

You may wonder
why the state wants to retain average kids. Since the state made teacher
pay partially dependent on pupil performance, teachers have been learning
how to teach (to) the test. For example, in my county the percentage of
students who failed to meet the standard in 1998 ranged from 10% (an "exemplary"
school) to 50% based on overall scores. While we know that the below average
child will always be with us, the state’s goal is to make all children
above average—at least until the test is renormed.

About
One-third of N.C. Children Retained

Phil
Kirk, chairman of the state board of education, asked the North Carolina
Research Council, located at UNC Chapel Hill, for a briefing paper on
the effects of retention. According to this paper, about a third of
N.C. children are retained at least once before ninth grade. These
new standards (based on last year’s scores) will almost certainly result
in some schools retaining that many or more at a single grade level.

This
wouldn’t be so alarming if it benefited the children. Unfortunately, the
same policy briefing confirmed what we already know.

Retention
Is Not the Solution

Even
under the best of circumstances, the benefits of retention erode after
three years.
In many cases, children are hurt. Children retained in kindergarten
and first grade are more likely to be hurt. Children who are slow learners
or disabled are more likely to be hurt.

Children
who are hurt by the schools are more likely to drop out at age 16.
This undermines our goal of a better educated population.

Retention
is inherently discriminatory. More poor children, black children,
and disabled children will be retained.

There
are more effective methods to increase performance without hurting
our most fragile and vulnerable children. Just one example is implementation
of summer school, a state program that dramatically reduced retention
in the early part of this decade

Despite
this report, attempts to intimidate principals into retaining vast numbers
of students seem to be escalating.

Originally,
DPI seemed to be relying solely on a requirement for principals to report
all children who were "socially promoted" as a deterrent. Apparently,
this was too subtle for some because the State News Service on April 2
reported, "State School Board Chairman Phil Kirk says the board will target
any district that tries to pass students who fail to meet the standards.
But Kirk does say that there will be an appeals process for students who
don’t pass the tests but can earn passing grades."

An appeals
committee will be formed under the policy, and the parents of disabled
children will be non voting members. (How this differs substantively from
regular parents’ right to present information showing their child really
is at grade level, I cannot say.)

The
burden will be on the teachers and parents to show that a child is really
at grade level despite low test scores —not on whether the retention is
likely to be of benefit to the child or even whether it may be harmful.

Principal
Retains Absolute Power to Grade and Place

The
non voting parents of a disabled child will share their evidence with
people who can only make a recommendation to the principal. The principal
retains his or her absolute power under the law to grade and place.
Absolute, at least, unless he or she is a wee bit fearful of being "targeted"
by the state board of education for promoting children who do not meet
the requirements.

Parents
of disabled children may, under the policy, convene the IEP Team and ask
that the promotion standard be waived. However, waiving the standard does
not necessarily mean the child will be promoted.

As the
policy is written, a principal may still retain a child for some other
reason. The state has not clarified the implications of that exemption.
The policy mandates that children exempted be provided with a "functional
curriculum."

However,
to get a diploma, the child must complete the standard course of study.
The policy limits educational interventions available to all students
who fail the test to those disabled children enrolled in the standard
course of study. It remains to be seen whether the federal government
will sign off on those consequences. Right now, a decision to exempt still
carries with it some potentially heavy penalties.

Retention
is not the only part of this policy that threatens children.

State
Policy That Pits Educators Against Parents

The
threat of retention based on a single test score is aversive.

When
a state policy pits educators against parents, the results are never beneficial.
The warnings are already visible. Some children with anxiety disorders
are terrified to come to school because their teachers told them that
if they did not improve their scores on a pre-test given last fall, they
might be retained.

These
children are like bellwethers, signaling a new flock of children with
test anxiety and school phobia.

When
President Clinton spoke about ending social promotion last January, I
do not believe he was suggesting a "one coffin fits all" educational
intervention based on a punitive philosophy. Yet in the manner our
state leaders have implemented this policy, end of grade test scores have
become more important than the child.

Dr.
Meany, consultant for the Exceptional Children’s Division of DPI, said
they were fearful if exceptional children were excluded from the retention
standard, "no one" would be accountable. In the ABC Plan, the state already
made teachers accountable for end of grade scores.

This
policy actually marks the second phase, wherein students and their parents
will be held answerable for the results of the child’s performance on
end of year tests.

It
is hard to believe that the state would sacrifice our weakest, most fragile,
and most vulnerable students so the majority of students will demonstrate
higher test performance. Yet, without any evidence that retention
helps our slow and disabled children, only one conclusion seems possible:
Our state leaders believe that by punishing slow kids, the other kids
will work harder.

Proposed
Changes

First,
students who fail to meet the standard should be offered, and the state
should fund, an instructionally sound intervention as an alternative,
not as an add-on, to retention (For a very small percentage of students,
retention may be appropriate, e.g., for child who because of temporary
health problems missed most of his school year.)

Second,
if parents disagree with the option offered, the appeals committee should
have the discretion to suggest an instructionally sound alternative, not
just offer a "PASS/FAIL" recommendation that is not binding.

Third,
the third tier of state testing, administered after a child has been given
instructionally sound educational assistance, should be used to determine
the child’s needs for the coming year—not as a final hurdle for him to
overcome.

Fourth,
principals should be afforded the opportunity to report another category
of child—children not meeting the standard who were placed in an upper
grade with appropriate (sound) instructional interventions. Only if there
is clear evidence that a child will be helped by an intervention, or if
parents decline appropriate alternative instructional interventions (such
as summer school), should retention be used.

In the
case of a disabled child, I believe the IEP Team, not an Appeals Committee,
should be making those decisions.

Because
the state Department of Public Instruction has not proposed this kind
of approach, one way for us to bring about change (short of going to due
process or engaging in litigation) is to write our state legislators.

Check
N.C. Policy

I
ask North Carolina parents to read the Policy for themselves—this is too
important just to take my word for what the state is proposing.

The
state’s FAQ
on the policy offers a fascinating insight into the reasoning behind
this policy.

Although
many of our legislators have e-mail addresses, I recommend writing them
via the U.S. mail, calling them, or meeting with them in person. Their
names, addresses, and phone numbers are available from the public library
or via the Internet.